Xanthophylls (polar carotenoids) play diverse biological roles, among which are modulation of the physical properties of lipid membranes and protection of biomembranes against oxidative damage. Molecular mechanisms underlying these functions are intimately related to the localization and orientation of xanthophyll molecules in lipid membranes. In the present work, we address the problem of localization and orientation of two xanthophylls present in the photosynthetic apparatus of plants and in the retina of the human eye, zeaxanthin and lutein, in a single lipid bilayer membrane formed with dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine. By using fluorescence microscopic analysis and Raman imaging of giant unilamellar vesicles, as well as molecular dynamics simulations, we show that lutein and zeaxanthin adopt a very similar transmembrane orientation within a lipid membrane. In experimental and computational approach, the average tilt angle of xanthophylls relative to the membrane normal is independently found to be ~40 deg, and results from hydrophobic mismatch between the membrane thickness and the distance between the terminal hydroxyl groups of the xanthophylls. Consequences of such a localization and orientation for biological activity of xanthophylls are discussed.

Biogenesis of iron–sulfur clusters (FeS) is a highly conserved process involving Hsp70 and J-protein chaperones. However, Hsp70 specialization differs among species. In most eukaryotes, including Schizosaccharomyces pombe, FeS biogenesis involves interaction between the J-protein Jac1 and the multifunctional Hsp70 Ssc1. But, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and closely related species, Jac1 interacts with the specialized Hsp70 Ssq1, which emerged through duplication of SSC1. As little is known about how gene duplicates affect the robustness of their protein interaction partners, we analyzed the functional and evolutionary consequences of Ssq1 specialization on the ubiquitous J-protein cochaperone Jac1, by comparing S. cerevisiae and S. pombe. Although deletion of JAC1 is lethal in both species, alanine substitutions within the conserved His–Pro–Asp (HPD) motif, which is critical for Jac1:Hsp70 interaction, have species-specific effects. They are lethal in S. pombe, but not in S. cerevisiae. These in vivo differences correlated with in vitro biochemical measurements. Charged residues present in the J-domain of S. cerevisiae Jac1, but absent in S. pombe Jac1, are important for tolerance of S. cerevisiae Jac1 to HPD alterations. Moreover, Jac1 orthologs from species that encode Ssq1 have a higher sequence divergence. The simplest interpretation of our results is that Ssq1’s coevolution with Jac1 resulted in expansion of their binding interface, thus increasing the efficiency of their interaction. Such an expansion could in turn compensate for negative effects of HPD substitutions. Thus, our results support the idea that the robustness of Jac1 emerged as consequence of its highly efficient and specific interaction with Ssq1.

In this study, the interaction of cisplatin (1) and two potential antitumoral Pt(II) complexes (2 and 3) with a model DMPC bilayer was investigated by multinuclear NMR spectroscopy and MD simulations in order to understand its implication for the different antitumoral properties shown by the three complexes. In particular, ³¹P, ¹³C and ²H solid state NMR experiments were performed to obtain information on the phase structure, phase transitions and structural and dynamic changes in the phospholipid bilayer upon interaction with the platinum complexes. On the other hand, MD calculations yielded free energy profiles for the different complexes across the bilayer; the results were analysed to obtain MD predictions on complex distribution with respect to the bilayer, as well as to establish their effects on the conformational equilibrium of the DMPC acyl chains. The combination of NMR and MD approaches highlighted that, whereas the more hydrophilic cisplatin tends to remain in the polar head group region causing a decrease in flexibility of the bilayer, the two new complexes enter into the bilayer. In particular, complex 2 is preferentially located relatively close to the surface, only slightly affecting the bilayer structure and mobility, while complex 3 penetrates more deeply, strongly perturbing the bilayer and giving rise to lateral phase separation.